kevinsbane
Senior member
- Jun 16, 2010
- 694
- 0
- 71
Would it take more computing power to push 64 bit instructions as opposed to pure 32 bit instructions?
Your girlfriend is an engineer! Congratulations. So am I. The logarithms were brought in because they are necessary to show why 2 is NOT an order of magnitude smaller than 10. In fact, logarithms are required to compute any difference when thinking in terms of orders of magnitude.
I think you're confusing the order of magnitude of any given number, and then comparing that to the order of magnitude of any other given number. This is incorrect. 2 -> 10 is debatable and like others, I'd be inclined to let it slide... but 9.9 -> 10? It's true that the order of magnitude of 9.9 is 0, and the order of magnitude of 10 is 1, but that does not mean 10 is an order of magnitude larger than 9.9. As I calculated in my previous post, it would be 0.054.... if orders of magnitude could be shown that way. Since, as you said, they must be integers, the correct conclusion would be to say that 10 is 0 orders of magnitude larger than 9.9.
I was reading your post and other people post with my gf (she's an engineer) and we had a pretty bad laugh.
there's no need to take in account logarithms here.
the scientific notation of 2.0 is 2.0*10^0
the scientific notation of 9.0 is 9.0*10^0
the scientific notation of 10 is 1.0*10^1
So 10 is one order of magnitude greater than 9 or 2.
Order of magnitudes are integer numbers.
and that someone is not you as you are confusing the logarithmic scale with order of magnitude.
Your girlfriend is an engineer! Congratulations. So am I. The logarithms were brought in because they are necessary to show why 2 is NOT an order of magnitude smaller than 10. In fact, logarithms are required to compute any difference when thinking in terms of orders of magnitude.
I think you're confusing the order of magnitude of any given number, and then comparing that to the order of magnitude of any other given number. This is incorrect. 2 -> 10 is debatable and like others, I'd be inclined to let it slide... but 9.9 -> 10? It's true that the order of magnitude of 9.9 is 0, and the order of magnitude of 10 is 1, but that does not mean 10 is an order of magnitude larger than 9.9. As I calculated in my previous post, it would be 0.054.... if orders of magnitude could be shown that way. Since, as you said, they must be integers, the correct conclusion would be to say that 10 is 0 orders of magnitude larger than 9.9.